Techdirt. Stories about "limewire"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories about "limewire"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Wed, 13 Nov 2013 03:28:28 PSTMovie Studios Suddenly Drop Lawsuit Against LimewireTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131112/12362625218/movie-studios-suddenly-drop-lawsuit-against-limewire.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131112/12362625218/movie-studios-suddenly-drop-lawsuit-against-limewire.shtml
After a long legal battle, Limewire finally agreed to pay $105 million in damages to the RIAA to settle its infringement lawsuit. The RIAA had previously bandied about much higher numbers, including some rhetorical discussion of the upper limits of statutory damages, which would have put the total "damages" in the range of $75 billion, something the presiding judge pointed out would have exceeded the recording industry's entire combined income since the invention of the phonograph in 1877.

$105 million isn't as much as the labels wanted, but it was enough. Once that was secured, some indie labels filed suit in an attempt to score a little cash as well. In a move both unsurprising (lawsuits are better than innovating!) and surprising (Limewire's owner not entirely made of money), major movie studios like Viacom, 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. filed a copyright infringement suit against the shuttered P2P service.

And with a signature and a date today, the more than $200 million copyright lawsuit by Hollywood against the file sharing site is over. A NYC-based federal judge today granted final approval to Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Viacom, Disney, Comedy Partners and Warner Bros' request to dismiss their almost two year case against LimeWire and its founder Mark Gorton. Filed on October 30, the motion for a voluntary dismissal with prejudice was approved by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr on Thursday.

Considering the studios have been more than willing to spend money to make money, it seems unlikely they would have dropped this case simply because Limewire would have put up the same sort of resistance it did in its battle with the RIAA. No matter how much the industry is "hurt" by file sharing, its leaders always seem to have their legal departments fully bankrolled. (This is due to the fact that the labels and studios frequently convert their lawsuit "winnings" directly into more lawsuits. The artists that are getting so screwed by file sharing continue to be screwed by their so-called "representatives," who rarely kick over any percentage of the settlements unless publicly shamed into doing so.)

Deadline's theory is that the studios were offered a little something for their time by Limewire itself.

However, sources tell me that the studios received a hefty multimillion-dollar settlement.

That may be, or it could be that a long-defunct service that fell out of public favor years ago may not be the best opponent to waste a largely symbolic victory on. Remember, the studios and labels don't just want to extract damages from websites and services -- they also want to "educate" potential file sharers by exploiting the statutory damages provision to its fullest. Nothing educates better than fear, apparently and reminding people that they could on the hook for up to $150,000 per violation is much more "enlightening" than being bound by any mathematical realities.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>you-can't-get-blood-from-a-beaten-dead-horse...-or-somethinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131112/12362625218Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:15:00 PDTRIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate SitesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120605/11481119209/riaa-to-congress-were-finally-innovating-now-go-shut-down-pirate-sites.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120605/11481119209/riaa-to-congress-were-finally-innovating-now-go-shut-down-pirate-sites.shtmlright after SOPA and PIPA died. He got a ton of backlash for that, and has since tried to be a little less condescending.

Thus, he starts out by talking about all the new business models and modern services that the record labels have adopted and licensed. Of course, he also says that CDs are not digital, so he's a bit confused about the technology. He also leaves out the fact that the labels had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, all the way to agree to the various services that he talks up -- and even then, its stance in negotiating licensing deals with them has been to try to strangle any service that gets too popular. He also talks up the recently negotiated royalty rates between labels, publishers and some digital music services -- leaving out the fact that they include royalty rates on things that don't require royalties (like mere music storage lockers).

But, in the end, Sherman is a one-trick pony, and back to that trick he goes. After talking about all of this "voluntary" innovation they've done -- and highlighting the various "voluntary" six strikes deal, as well as advertising putting together a blacklist of "rogue" sites they won't advertise on -- Sherman goes back to whining about how "piracy" must be stopped. He starts out by, yet again, misleading and misrepresenting what's happening. He talks about how there's less revenue from music sales -- but ignores that more money has gone into music itself, once you look at the massive increase in live music. He ignores the fact that people are actually spending more on enjoying music today than ever before in the past. The idea that people aren't paying is simply wrong.

And then he has the ridiculous gall to suggest less music is getting out to the world because of this:

What kind of harm? Massive layoffs, of course. But also less
money to invest in artists. That means fewer artists on our rosters, fewer people who can make
a living from music, fewer songs permeating through our culture that help form a piece of our
national identity.

That's ridiculous. Look at any credible data, and you see that more music is being created today than ever before. More artists are making money today from music than ever before. And you know how songs can better permeate through our culture and help form a piece of our national identity? Well, here's a hint: by not locking up that music, by allowing it to be shared and played and heard. But that's not how the RIAA works.

He brings up the record labels favorite talking point these days: which is that fewer people list themselves as full time musicians in the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This is, at best, a red herring. This is a time of transition, and certainly the labels are funding fewer musicians. But new business models are growing rapidly and while they may not be funding as many full time musicians (yet), they are helping more musicians make some money. And, as we've seen over and over again, the trend on these new platforms is that they're growing and able to fund more and more, as they grow. It's a classic innovator's dilemma situation. Similarly, the deeper you dig into the BLS numbers, the more interesting things you find. For example, there's been a massive increase in independent artists. But, the big labels that the RIAA represents don't want you to know that.

He then goes on to claim that enforcement works -- and uses Limewire and MegaUpload as examples. He notes the correlation between growth in sales after Limewire's shut down, and suggests "it is not a coincidence" the two things happened at the same time (though, other reports note the release of some very popular albums at the same time). He also insists that a survey of Limewire users claims they didn't sign up for any other unauthorized service. That's something more like wishful thinking. The data actually suggests there continues to be a pretty big growth in unauthorized sharing. The death of Limewire looks like a temporary blip. Also, if you were a former Limewire user, and a research firm representing the guys who shut it down came and asked you what you were using now, how many of you would point your finger to the new service you found so they could shut it down? Exactly.

As for Megaupload, nice work by the RIAA to support a case that is rapidly falling apart for the US, where it looks increasingly like the US didn't even come close to following the law in shutting down a site that had significant non-infringing uses. And, of course, he leaves out the fact that it was the RIAA's own bogus evidence, which they could never back up, that resulted in a hip hop blog, Dajaz1, being shut down and censored for over a year. That's the kind of enforcement he's supporting?

And then there's the push for a new SOPA:

These voluntary programs are not a panacea. No program ever will be. And sometimes,
the Congress must step in to assure that our property rights, and U.S. economic interests, are
being protected. Especially against sites overseas whose business model is the theft of U.S.
works.

Funny that he says this right after talking about the success in shutting down Megaupload -- which didn't (according to the RIAA or the feds) require any new action from Congress.

He also continues to take shots at the tech industry, and at search in particular. After talking about things like the six strikes program and the ad blacklist, he notes:

We hope
other intermediaries like search engines will follow suit in negotiating voluntary marketplace
best practices to prevent directing users to sites that are dedicated to violating property rights.

Of course, this ignores the realities of the situation, in which you can't just block out sites because the RIAA doesn't like them. The RIAA has a long and detailed history of blaming perfectly legitimate products for being "illegal." Remember, this is the same group that sued to kill the first MP3 player. And now they want the search engines to just trust them in determining which sites are evil and which are good? It doesn't work that way.

He then points out that he wants to "reach out" to "the tech and Internet communities." He could just say, you know, "the public." Also, I'm trying to figure out why Sherman, Dodd and others keep talking about reaching out, but never actually do. Once again, it's not at all difficult to get into a discussion online. Why don't they ever do it?

Sherman also uses the opportunity to once again push for a RIAA bailout from radio, by forcing a tax to advertise their music. The RIAA has been pushing for this tax for years and it makes no sense. The labels know that radio is free advertising for them. It's why they're so often accused of payola. Because they know that if they get their songs on the radio, there's massive value in that and lots of ways to monetize it. So they pay ridiculous sums of money to "promoters" who pass that along to radio people to get the songs on the air. And now they're claiming that the labels need to be paid if the radios play that same music? It's insanity.

Either way, it's still more of the same. Until Cary Sherman is replaced by someone who actually spends time on the internet, the RIAA is going to increasingly represent a smaller and smaller portion of the music industry. The new music industry -- including tons of new artists, new music services, and even new labels, know that the RIAA's focus is on the past, not the future.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>kicking and screaminghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120605/11481119209Thu, 24 May 2012 16:33:07 PDTNo, The RIAA Is Not Asking For $72 Trillion From Limewire (Bad Reporters, Bad)Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/16265119070/no-riaa-is-not-asking-72-trillion-limewire-bad-reporters-bad.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/16265119070/no-riaa-is-not-asking-72-trillion-limewire-bad-reporters-bad.shtmlthe RIAA claims it is owed $72 trillion dollars from Limewire. Many of the reports appear to originate from the NME post I just linked to, though I don't think that's accurate. The story is bogus in almost every way possible, and it's kinda sad that a ton of websites are repeating it as fact. If the basic statement sounds familiar, it's because the RIAA member labels did make an extreme request on damages last year in the Limewire case, suggesting that every single download should be subject to statutory damages, which could, under some circumstances (basically willful infringement) reach up to $150,000 per download. As we (and many other sites) reported in March of 2011, Judge Kimba Wood rejected that claim, noting that:

"Plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877," Wood wrote, citing a Lime Group court filing referring to the inventor Thomas Edison. She called this an "absurd result."

While she did say that such an argument would likely lead to "billions" in damages, she also mentioned that it could possibly reach trillions in damages, but I don't believe she ever mentioned $72 trillion. Someone, however, did a back of the envelope calculation based on downloads and tossed out that $72 trillion number, and it caught on widely... again, way back in March of 2011. The first place I can find (though it may have come from somewhere else) to quote such a massive number was actually a Law.com article that came out right before the ruling was made. And it says $75 trillion.

Anyway, a year ago, in May of 2011, Limewire famously (or so we thought) settled the case for $105 million. That case is basically over.

And yet, for reasons that are beyond me, someone has revived the original story and lots and lots of other sites -- including plenty with real reporters who should know better -- are repeating it as fact, even to the point some are claiming that this shows the RIAA "wasn't satisfied" with the $105 million settlement. Most reports are linking back to NME as originating it, and the NME report links back to one of the many posts from March of 2011, from Computerworld, so you might think that the (nameless) NME reporter misread the date.

However, in looking around, two days before NME did its bogus report, it looks like Stuff.co.nz posted a similar storyalso linking to that same ComputerWorld story. Amusingly, the very first comment on that Stuff piece points out that link is to a story from 2011. And yet, Stuff has still not updated its story or posted a correction. Meanwhile, it looks like NME's (still nameless) reporter, simply copied the story from Stuff without crediting Stuff in the first place... meaning that many people are blaming NME for reviving the story, when really, NME just sucks at crediting their sources (and fact checking).

Either way, tons of other sites picked up on the story, including CBS News, who has since pulled it down entirely and just has a 404 page where it was before.

Then there are the folks at "Business Insider," who still have the story up but appear to have appended a "note" at the bottom that says "This case was settled last May for the much smaller fee of $105 million." You'd think that this should have led them to (a) change the headline (b) put the note at the top (c) be a little more clear in correcting their error. Even The Onion fell for it, though they've since posted an update. Then there are folks like WebProNews, Spinner and ZeroPaid (who is normally so good on this stuff), all of whom should have known better.

Anyway: basically this story is bogus. Well over a year ago, the RIAA made a ridiculous attempt to seek damages on every download. No specific amount was named, and no matter how you do your math, that $72 trillion number never made any sense at all. It was just a reporter looking for a good headline. Either way, the judge totally rejected that plan 15 months ago, and the entire case settled a year ago.

Nothing to see here folks, other than an internet pile-on. Move along now...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>stop-thathttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120524/16265119070Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:28:26 PSTMovie Studios Jump In Late: Sue LimeWire And Demand Cash From Dead SiteMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120204/00405217659/movie-studios-jump-late-sue-limewire-demand-cash-dead-site.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120204/00405217659/movie-studios-jump-late-sue-limewire-demand-cash-dead-site.shtmlsettling the lawsuit filed against it by the major record labels for $105 million (down from the many trillions it had originally said it deserved), you might think that the legal shenanigans were long over. Apparently, someone in the MPAA just woke up to the fact that this might be a way to get some easy cash to pump into its next lobbying campaign, and has just now sued Limewire as well, demanding cash for any of its files that were traded. Of course, a bunch of indie record labels also sued, so it appears that lots of those who chose not to innovate are now trying to feed off of what's left of Limewire's carcass. It does make you wonder, of course, what made the movie studios wait so damn long. Of course, isn't that just like Hollywood? Rather than do something original, it just does a "remake" of something someone else already did?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>the-new-business-model?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120204/00405217659Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:44:11 PDTIndie Records Sue Limewire; Feeling Left Out From RIAA SettlementMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110716/01570115119/indie-records-sue-limewire-feeling-left-out-riaa-settlement.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110716/01570115119/indie-records-sue-limewire-feeling-left-out-riaa-settlement.shtmlsettled with Limewire for $105 million. We questioned how much of that money would make it to artists... but there's a separate question too: what about the indie labels who weren't a part of the lawsuit. Apparently, the labels had asked indie labels to stay out of the lawsuit, and Limewire made a promise that it would offer similar settlement terms to those indies. Apparently, that hasn't happened.. and so the indies are suing Limewire as well. I'd be surprised if this didn't settle relatively quickly.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>mo-moneyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110716/01570115119Wed, 6 Jul 2011 22:09:26 PDTSilly Promotional Stunt Lawsuit Against CBS For 'Profiting From Piracy' DroppedMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110706/13114714988/silly-promotional-stunt-lawsuit-against-cbs-profiting-piracy-dropped.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110706/13114714988/silly-promotional-stunt-lawsuit-against-cbs-profiting-piracy-dropped.shtmlpublicity stunt lawsuit. David's startup was being sued by broadcasters, such as CBS, for trying to retransmit TV channels online. So, David first put together a silly and ridiculous video insisting that the reason CBS was suing him was because it was profiting from piracy and wanted to keep that racket going or something. The crux of the claim was that CBS owns CNET. CNET runs download.com. Limewire was distributed via download.com. Limewire was found guilty of copyright infringement. Thus, CBS profits from piracy. That's a stretch by any imagination, but David took it even further and sued CBS. We noted at the time that the lawsuit seemed unlikely to get very far, and that's definitely the case.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>there-goes-that-planhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110706/13114714988Thu, 19 May 2011 12:18:07 PDTMajor Labels Shamed Into Promising To Give Some Of $105 Million Limewire Settlement To ArtistsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/10041714342/major-labels-shamed-into-promising-to-give-some-105-million-limewire-settlement-to-artists.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/10041714342/major-labels-shamed-into-promising-to-give-some-105-million-limewire-settlement-to-artists.shtmlquestioned how much of that money would go to actual artists. Many people, quite reasonably, pointed to a quote from a few years ago from the RIAA's Jonathan Lamy saying, "Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs." That line got a lot of attention, and I wondered if the labels would be forced to actually give some money to artists, and it appears that may be happening. Lamy came out and said that his quote was about something else -- the RIAA's lawsuits against individuals (hurray for suing fans!), rather than this lawsuit against Limewire. Now, the major labels are starting to step forward and say that yes, yes, yes, they'll give some of the money to artists. I'm guessing, at this point, that it's purely a crisis management type situation, where the labels are realizing they need to show that they're giving some of the money to artists (in part because all these stories mean that the artists themselves have started asking). So now that the labels promise to give some of the money to artists, let's see if they ever say how much actually goes to artists...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>but-how-much?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110519/10041714342Mon, 16 May 2011 10:49:55 PDTDid LimeWire Shutdown Increase Music Sales? Part IIMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/00015014275/did-limewire-shutdown-increase-music-sales-part-ii.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/00015014275/did-limewire-shutdown-increase-music-sales-part-ii.shtmlmassive drop following the shuttering of LimeWire. Of course, I pointed out at the time that those celebrating this were (yet again) focused on the wrong question. So often we hear copyright maximalists talk about how "piracy" must be stopped, but they never seem to want to discuss whether or not that will make people buy again. So, we looked at some of the data provided by some who did believe LimeWire's shutdown had increased sales, but it came up a bit wanting. Still, I'm all about data, and if there really is data supporting the claims that LimeWire's shutdown resulted in increased sales, it might make me reconsider my position on the wisdom of taking legal action against operations like LimeWire.

Boom! Case closed. LimeWire's shutdown saved the music industry. Right? Well, actually, no. Doesn't look like that at all. In fact, Nielsen doesn't even mention LimeWire's shutdown in its note about this, attributing much of the increase to the Beatles finally coming to iTunes. And, actually, if you look at the same Nielsen reports going all the way back to 2006, they show music sales going up each year. It's just that more of it is single tracks, rather than full overpriced albums. It looks like the same is true of the latest data as well. If anything, the data suggests a noticeable slowdown in the growth rate. That is, sales are only up 1.6%, this year, which seems significantly down from the growth rate in past years. In 2006, the growth rate was 19%. In 2007 it was 14%. In 2008 it was 10%. In 2009 it was 2.1%.

Perhaps there's some other data to be found, but it's hard to see how there's much of an argument that the shutdown of LimeWire, even if it really did cause file sharing to drop massively, then resulted in an increase in music sales. Kinda makes you wonder about those claims from the RIAA about just how much LimeWire had to do with their problems.... It also explains why the labels were happy to settle for $105 million after claiming trillions in damages from LimeWire. Even the industry seems to know that it's not file sharing that's the real issue.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>checking-inhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110516/00015014275Fri, 13 May 2011 07:17:11 PDTLimewire Settles For $105 Million; How Much Of That Will Go To Artists?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110512/21363814255/limewire-settles-105-million-how-much-that-will-go-to-artists.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110512/21363814255/limewire-settles-105-million-how-much-that-will-go-to-artists.shtmlsettled their lawsuit, with Limewire's Mark Groton agreeing to pay $105 million to the labels. This particular trial was only about how much he should have to pay, and a settlement was inevitable, because Groton was already found to be guilty, and the judge had already declared that he, personally, was liable, rather than just the corporation (corporate veil? pierced!). So, at that point, you knew he had to settle. Limewire had already settled with the music publishers, who freaked out when Limewire sought to dig deep into records the publishers did not want public. Either way, as we noted when Limewire lost, this sort of result was inevitable. Limewire really did act quite like Grokster, and it's really bizarre that Groton thought he could keep the site going without this result.

Of course, $105 million is significantly less than what the RIAA had been asking for -- with the judge practically mocking the labels at one point for suggesting that Limewire was on the hook for $75 trillion -- or "more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877." $105 million is also significantly less than the $1 billion that was the whisper number making the rounds that the labels were demanding.

The real question, though, is what will happen to the money, and how much of it (if any) will actually go to any of the artists signed to those labels. If any RIAA label artists receive a check from this lawsuit, please let us know. I expect we'll be waiting a long, long time. In the meantime, we're still curious if this shutdown of Limewire has resulted in any increased sales. A couple months ago, we had an interesting discussion on the topic, and looked at some evidence on both sides. I think it may be too early to tell, but it'll be worth watching to see what the eventual evidence shows.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>you-get-three-guesseshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110512/21363814255Wed, 4 May 2011 16:06:00 PDTSilly Lawsuit Filed Against CBS Because Subsidiary CNET Offered Limewire For DownloadMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110504/12543914144/silly-lawsuit-filed-against-cbs-because-subsidiary-cnet-offered-limewire-download.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110504/12543914144/silly-lawsuit-filed-against-cbs-because-subsidiary-cnet-offered-limewire-download.shtmlCBS profits from piracy and doesn't want others getting into the game and competing. No, really. You can see the video here:

The logical trainwreck comes from the fact that CBS bought CNET a few years ago, and among CNET's properties is Download.com, which is probably the single most popular place for companies to offer up their software products for download. It's been that way for years. One of the many, many, many software products available to download from Download.com was Limewire, which (as you know) was recently found guilty of facilitating copyright infringement. David's argument is that CBS makes a ton of money from this setup. It doesn't. CBS may make a little bit of money from this, but it's not even a rounding error on CBS's bottom line. This is so far removed from CBS's business it's hard to do more than laugh at the accusations.

However, David has now taken it to another level, and together with some hip hop and R&B artists, is suing CBS for copyright infringement over this same issue. It seems pretty clear that this is a nuisance suit from David, who is upset about the lawsuits against his company -- which seem to have a lot stronger basis in law. I can't see how CBS has liability here. We're not even talking about standard third party liability here. CBS is a fourth or fifth party here, at best. The actual infringement comes from end users. Limewire is the tool they use. CBS's CNET's Download.com is the tool that Limewire uses. To blame CBS for that is a huge stretch. Also, unless I'm missing it, nowhere in the lawsuit filing embedded below do I see what specific copyrights of the plaintiffs CBS is accused of infringing upon...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>fourth-party-liability?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110504/12543914144Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:23:47 PDTLeaked Documents Show How The RIAA Plans To Spend The Limewire SettlementTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03010214038/leaked-documents-show-how-riaa-plans-to-spend-limewire-settlement.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/03010214038/leaked-documents-show-how-riaa-plans-to-spend-limewire-settlement.shtmlThe RIAA believes it is on the cusp of victory in its lawsuit against Limewire, thanks mainly to its large selection of damaging charts. However, it seems to be expecting the worst, if these leaked documents are any indication. All evidence below indicates that the RIAA will be willing to settle for only $15 billion (out of a possible $55 billion). Not only that, but it already has plans in place for the dispersal of the Limewire settlement.

Explanatory Notes

First and foremost, the legal war chest must be refilled. It never sleeps and it is always hungry. Copyright won't protect itself and every battle to secure these rights has become long, uphill and against the wind.

A $15 billion payout doesn't come around every day and our executives are justly entitled to a large chunk of that ($3.15 bil.). As an added bonus (to the bonuses), all executives will be treated to a celebratory blimp ride ($2.25 bil.). This dollar amount seems high until you consider that each executive will be requiring their own blimp. Previously, the executives had shared one blimp, but in the post-Napster environment, "sharing" is obviously no longer a legal option.

Other line items include the ongoing efforts in Washington to impose the RIAA's will on the internet, research and development and the opaquely-named "Other Expenditures."

(1) Other ExpendituresHaving run the "Stealing a Song = Stealing a Car" analogy into the ground, we need a new "go to" catchphrase. Hence, $1.05 billion should be earmarked for development of a new anti-piracy metaphor. Suggestions include:

Stealing a song is like kidnapping an artist's children and is punishable by a sentence of 25 years to life.

Other incidental expenditures include a much-needed re-upholstering of the executive suites and a celebratory hot tub full of money to splash around in with various members of the escort community, each of whom will be paid in full for their services, including any fees due for public performance.

(2) Research and DevelopmentA lion's share of the payout will go towards the ongoing development of a time machine/wormhole to 1991 ($450 million). Many recent efforts have come close but the RIAA has yet to reach the pre-Napster days and develop a parallel timeline in which CD sales increase forever. On the plus side, it did manage to get our mom to hook up with our dad, thus ensuring our continued existence.

Other products/services on the way:

A computer-unfriendly music delivery system, much needed in this time of digital theft. Wax cylinders have been discussed as well as a partnership with RealPlayer, whose clumsy, bug-ridden software would likely prevent music from being enjoyed on a wide variety of operating systems.

"Lost Sales" calculation improvements, which should allow the RIAA to seek even larger damages from various file sharing services. It is hoped that we will finally reach the trillion dollar mark within the next decade. In addition, breakthroughs should also be sought in the "Shocking Graph" field, what with the recent success of the "Napster Ruined Everything" line graphs.

A partnership with the developers of The Club to prevent music from being stolen. A possible route would be some sort of clamp that could be tightened around an ethernet cable to prevent uploading. In other words, not so much "throttling" as "strangling."

Domain seizure technology, via the RIAA's partnership with ICE, which has already proven its ability to take thousands of sites offline despite lack of evidence or proper investigative techniques. On the front burner: cooperating with ICE's takedown of many large pharmaceutical companies who continue to make themselves rich off various anti-seizure remedies, including the weirdly-named Antivan and Dilantin.

Royalty Payments

Royalty disbursements, as expected, will be delivered in a "top down" fashion. Those artists with the most sales will receive a disproportionately large share of the proceeds. After the "Big 3" are taken care of (and a chunk of money thrown towards Paul McGuiness in hopes that some of it lands in his mouth), the remaining funds will be dispersed to yet more lawyers and an appreciable amount ($300,000 ) put towards the ongoing health of Jon Bon Jovi's remaining hair. It is hoped that he will be able to put off his eventual "Trump Hair" for another 7-10 years, thus ensuring his continued success in the field of "fairly attractive frontmen." See footnotes for royalty dispersals.

The remainder of the RIAA's roster will split $150,000. To qualify for payment, bands/musicians must have a viable Wikipedia page (stubs and pages slated for deletion do not count) and a web presence that includes more than just a long-abandoned MySpace page. (Try Facebook.)

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it's-not-75-trillion-but-it's-a-starthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110426/03010214038Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:40:07 PDTNew RIAA Evidence Comes To Light: Napster Killed Kerosene Too!Tim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/16551713858/new-riaa-evidence-comes-to-light-is-there-nothing-file-sharing-cant-destroy.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/16551713858/new-riaa-evidence-comes-to-light-is-there-nothing-file-sharing-cant-destroy.shtmlThe RIAA has stepped up its game in the final stages of its lawsuit against Limewire, where the focus is on determining damages. As part of this, it has cranked out an illuminating chart showing that the decline of the music business rests entirely on file sharing. Nowhere among the multi-colored lines will you find any references to an aging record-buying demographic, the proliferation of thousands of independent labels or even the ultimate game-changer itself, the internet.

As you well know, the internet was invented in 1991 by billionaire tycoon, Al Gore. In its infancy, the internet was nothing more than a forum for conspiracy theorists to exchange anti-government writings and ASCII porn. However, everything changed in 1998 with the simultaneous debut of Napster and the mp3, both invented by Shawn Fanning. With this new "distribution system," the music industry could no longer afford to ignore the looming force of the internet, at least not for more than the next half-decade. Now, with billions at stake, the RIAA has unleashed its ultimate weapon: the line chart. Below is their devastating "Exhibit A:" filed in the lawsuit against Limewire:

Broken down bizarrely into "Albums per Capita," the RIAA's chart takes care to point out two things:

1. Napster.2. All else being equal, record sales will grow indefinitely.

But that's not all. The number crunchers over at the RIAA have also entered the following charts as eye-catching evidence of the havoc wreaked by file sharing.

Exhibit B: Napster vs. Kerosene Sales

Kerosene usage dropped off considerably before the 1990's, but was still growing slowly for most of the decade. As this previously unpublished RIAA chart clearly shows, 1999 (1 P.N.*) was kerosene's peak, which was then followed by a decade-long slide. Consulting economists from George Mason University have stated that Napster's arrival "didn't have a goddamn thing to do with kerosene's decline." This testimony has been stricken from the record as "irrelevant," as no economist consulted was a former employee of the major labels. Conclusion: the world would be a better (if slightly more odorous) place if Napster had never existed.

*Post-Napster

Exhibit C: The Internet vs. Vehicle Theft

With this chart, obviously the RIAA intends to show a clear correlation between the internet's introduction and the decline of vehicular theft, an unfortunate situation that has put many honest car thieves out of work. It is also hoping to prove the old adage that "illegal downloading is exactly like stealing a car -- which is why car theft declined as file sharing increased."

As the data shows, vehicle theft followed the music industry's decade-long climb from 1986-1996. Or tried to, anyway. Vehicle theft peaked in 1991 at an unsustainable level of .0066 vehicles stolen per capita. Unfortunately, the web turned these hard-working car thieves into lazy music thieves, thwarting a vehicular theft pattern that should have risen to epidemic levels over the next decade. The data points to one damning fact: you can do more financial damage with a single internet connection than has been done in the entirety of human history up to 1998.

Exhibit D: The RIAA and the Honest American Farmer

As everyone knows, Real Americans Don't Share™. And nothing is more American than farming, one of the first victims of the internet's cruel efficiency. The American farm has been on a decline since well before records were kept (ca. 1992, apparently), and the arrival of file sharing decimated both of the U.S.A.'s prime cash crops: compact discs and popcorn.

The fate of these declining industries are apparently forever intertwined, much like the essentially meaningless overlaid chart above. Both lines run downhill in an indictment of, well, everything un-American. In fact, if you look closely enough, you can see the two graph points bravely embracing each other as they weather the onslaught of progress.

And there you have it: incontrovertible proof that copyright infringement is killing American institutions one download at a time.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>i can math like the music industryhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110411/16551713858Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:36:24 PDTRIAA Lawyer In Limewire Lawsuit Recommended As A Federal JudgeMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/00333013902/riaa-lawyer-limewire-lawsuit-recommended-as-federal-judge.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/00333013902/riaa-lawyer-limewire-lawsuit-recommended-as-federal-judge.shtmlruling on copyright cases that could have an eventual impact on the RIAA. There may be some other similar situations coming up as well. Someone who prefers to remain anonymous pointed out that Senator Chuck Schumer recently recommended Katherine B. Forrest to serve as a judge in the SDNY district court. Among Forrest's recent cases? Representing the major record labels in their lawsuit against Limewire.

Now, this is not to say that Forrest wouldn't make a good judge. She very well might. This also isn't meant to single out Forrest. It's just that this particular situation, combined with the Howell situation, at least raises some questions about whether or not judicial bias is an issue. It's just not a topic that's discussed all that often. I would imagine that if she did become a judge, she would recuse herself from any RIAA related cases that might come her way. However, at a time when judges are becoming increasingly important in keeping things like copyright lawsuits from getting completely out of hand, shouldn't there at least be some exploration of whether or not judges' previous work experience might bias them in a particular direction?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>judicial-capture?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110415/00333013902Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:22:00 PDTDid Limewire Shutdown Increase Music Sales?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110327/22561013640/did-limewire-shutdown-increase-music-sales.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110327/22561013640/did-limewire-shutdown-increase-music-sales.shtmldropped off significantly due to the Limewire shutdown. While there are some serious questions about NPD's methodology, we assumed that it was at least mostly accurate, and then asked if there had been a corresponding increase in music sales. After all, despite what you hear from the RIAA/MPAA, the end game should be about business being stronger, not about "reducing piracy." And if "reducing piracy" doesn't end up with more sales, then what good does it do, really?

I think this is worth exploring, because I've been asking for some actual empirical evidence and we have some. If it's really true that reducing piracy leads to greater sales, that would surprise me, but it would be good to know. If it turns out that reducing piracy leads to more revenue than could have been made otherwise (such as by embracing file sharing) then that would likely cause me to change my opinion on the best strategy for the RIAA to take in this fight. As for the Taylor Swift example, I don't think that proves much of anything, frankly. Throughout the file sharing era, there have been a bunch of releases that sold over a million copies in their first week. In fact, prior to Napster, there had been only two such releases. The rest all came post-Napster. So I'm not sure we can really learn too much about that. Big hit albums still sell. I'm not sure that's got anything to do with Limewire.

As for the other link to sales being up for a five week period, that's definitely worth noting, though, it does not correspond to the same quarter that the NPD study covered. NPD looked at Q4 of 2010. The link above is talking about February and March of 2011. Now, it's entirely possible there's a lag, and people who stopped using Limewire did nothing for 3 months and then suddenly started buying. Perhaps that's the case. If anyone has more info on what was actually selling during these past five weeks, that would help us dig a bit deeper into this information. Some might also point out that SoundScan is not the most trustworthy source of data on music sales -- but it wouldn't surprise me if it were accurate "enough" for the type of music that people used Limewire for, so I wouldn't write it off just because it's Soundscan.

I'm not yet convinced that these two data points are necessarily connected, but it is certainly worth noting the recent bump, and it would be great if folks here were able to dig in a bit deeper and see if we can unpack the reasons for the bump in music sales over the past few weeks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>digging inhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110327/22561013640Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:29:51 PDTDrop In P2P File Sharing Due To Limewire Shutdown A Pyrrhic Victory For The Recording IndustryMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110324/16194713614/drop-p2p-file-sharing-due-to-limewire-shutdown-pyrrhic-victory-recording-industry.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110324/16194713614/drop-p2p-file-sharing-due-to-limewire-shutdown-pyrrhic-victory-recording-industry.shtmlan apparently large dropoff in P2P file sharing in the fourth quarter, which it attributes to the closure of Limewire. I had hesitated to get into this, because NPD's numbers and analysis have historically been suspect, so I always take anything that comes from them with a pretty large grain of salt. They also work for the usual suspects, calling into question some of their objectivity.

And, indeed, there are certainly some questions about the accuracy of the report, which involves self-reported user surveys -- generally not the most reliable method of getting accurate data on something like file sharing (especially in the wake of something being shut down for being "illegal.") That said, the numbers are big enough that even if they're a bit off, it certainly does suggest something happened, and just to be nice, I'll even grant the basic premise that file sharing in the US slowed down when Limewire shut down. Limewire historically has been popular, though not with the more technically savvy folks, but with a more general crowd, who tended to treat it much more like radio than as a way to "obtain" music.

But here's the big question: assuming we accept this massive dropoff in P2P file sharing, was there a corresponding jump in music sales?

I am pretty sure that we won't see a corresponding giant leap in music sales for the same quarter. And that's kind of the point that we've been making all along. For all this talk of enforcement, why can't anyone provide any evidence that it actually leads people to go back to buying stuff? In the case of Limewire, since most users didn't really look at it as a replacement for sales, but as a replacement for radio, it's not likely that they're suddenly going to run to start paying. Instead, they'll switch to other options, whether it's YouTube, Pandora, GrooveShark or something else. If Spotify were actually available in the US, I would bet that it would sop up many ex-Limewire users.

And that's really the major point here. Rather than seeing this decrease as a "victory" for the RIAA (as some have suggested), it highlights what an astounding lost opportunity it has been. Limewire, whatever its faults, was very eager to work with the recording industry to monetize the massive user base it had. And the record labels refused, just as they refused to negotiate with Napster a decade ago (something many in the industry now claim to regret -- despite the fact that they've done it again and again and again). So rather than taking that opportunity, it's been squandered. Similarly, if the record labels got their act together, services like Spotify would have launched in the US long ago. But the labels keep demanding more and more ridiculous conditions on the deal, and thus, the people go elsewhere... often to places where the labels won't get paid at all.

This is what happens when you mistakenly think that the thing to focus on is stopping infringement rather than making more money. It's the "but... but... piracy" argument all over again, where people get so focused on that, they forget the endgame. So, sure, the shuttering of Limewire may have stopped people from using P2P to obtain files. But will it actually get people to buy? Unlikely. And that's a massive squandered opportunity.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>all those interested people... gonehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110324/16194713614Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:39:49 PSTJudge Rejects RIAA's Attempt To Claim 'Trillions' In Damages From LimewireMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/06521713462/judge-rejects-riaas-attempt-to-claim-trillions-damages-limewire.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/06521713462/judge-rejects-riaas-attempt-to-claim-trillions-damages-limewire.shtmlrejected the record labels' attempt to say that Limewire should pay statutory damages based on each time an unauthorized file was shared, instead pointing out that, at a maximum, each song is only subject to a single statutory damage amount, no matter how often it was shared. The judge pointed out that the labels were being ridiculous:

"Plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877," Wood wrote, citing a Lime Group court filing referring to the inventor Thomas Edison. She called this an "absurd result."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>try-againhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110311/06521713462Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:13:55 PSTMusic Publishers Settle With Limewire; Afraid To Have To Prove They Actually Owned Copyrights In QuestionMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/17022113407/music-publishers-settle-with-limewire-afraid-to-have-to-prove-they-actually-owned-copyrights-question.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/17022113407/music-publishers-settle-with-limewire-afraid-to-have-to-prove-they-actually-owned-copyrights-question.shtmlsued Limewire. After all, the major record labels (who own most of the major publishers anyway) were already involved in a lawsuit with Limewire and had won a pretty complete victory over the file sharing system. Having the publishers sue as well seemed like just a way to try to squeeze even more money out of a dead shell. Apparently, the publishers just figured that whatever they got out of this was easy money. What they didn't expect was that Limewire, dead as it is, would fight back pretty hard and during discovery demand actual evidence that the publishers really hold the copyrights they claim to hold (something that isn't always clear once you dig into the details). So it's interesting to see that a settlement has been reached, and the publishers' portion of the lawsuit is effectively over. Many reports seem to be assuming that Limewire gave up here, but there's a good chance that it was the publishers who backed out, realizing they had no interest in opening up a discovery process that might prove a large segment of their business is based on pure fiction. In the meantime, they'll leave it to their parent companies to continue the battle to try to get whatever cash they can out of Limewire.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>ah,-discovery...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110308/17022113407Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:51:26 PSTLimewire Seeking All The Recording Industry's SecretsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/02223912507/limewire-seeking-all-recording-industrys-secrets.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110104/02223912507/limewire-seeking-all-recording-industrys-secrets.shtmllost its lawsuit in a big way to the record labels (as pretty much everyone expected), the ensuing legal fight has remained quite interesting. We've already covered the surprising move by the judge to try to explore the "real costs" of file sharing to determine damages, and in response, it looks like Limewire is trying to drag tons of other companies into the fight. Limewire is claiming that just relying on the recording industry's own documents concerning "costs" and royalties isn't enough. This makes sense, given RIAA accounting practices. However, its efforts to get others to jump in may be pretty difficult as well. A court has already rejected a request to subpoena MediaDefender, one of the industry's favored "anti-piracy" outfits, and another court is reviewing Limewire's request to compel Amazon to hand over royalty information. The indications are that it's also seeking (or will seek) similar info from Apple. While I doubt the courts will let Limewire go through with most of these subpoenas, if they do happen to get the info, we could see quite the airing of dirty laundry and details concerning various music licensing deals -- which is the last thing the RIAA wants to see happen.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>not-backing-down-easilyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110104/02223912507Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:57:51 PSTJudge In Limewire Case Wants To Explore How Much File Sharing Really Costs Record LabelsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/04100512316/judge-limewire-case-wants-to-explore-how-much-file-sharing-really-costs-record-labels.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/04100512316/judge-limewire-case-wants-to-explore-how-much-file-sharing-really-costs-record-labels.shtmllegal loss earlier this year, you might have though the case was totally over. However, the record labels quickly claimed that with the loss, Limewire should have to pay a billion dollars, which seemed a bit extreme. In typical RIAA fashion, the labels didn't feel like they should have to prove any damages at all, but that the judge should just order statutory rates. However, Limewire asked the judge to have the record labels actually prove their losses -- and, somewhat stunningly -- it appears the judge has agreed, despite the record labels' claim that trying to prove damages would represent a "crushing burden":

On Tuesday, Judge Freeman said tough noogies, with some interesting language written in the margins of a court-endorsed memo to the parties. She scribbled -- barely legible -- that Lime Wire should enjoy enough discovery to mount a defense on the damages issue. Both Lime Wire and the labels must pick 100 works -- 80 songs and 20 albums -- that each believes to be representative of the damage (real or not) that file-sharing has on the record companies. In addition, 100 more works -- another 80 songs and 20 albums -- will be selected at random.

It's not entirely clear, from there, how each side will go about showing damages, but it is interesting that the plan seems to be to look for empirical evidence to determine actual damages. I'm really surprised by this -- since my understanding was that with statutory rates, the whole idea was that the copyright holder never had to bother proving any actual damage (something I disagree with -- but it's what I thought the law said...). Either way, it certainly would be nice if there were some reasonable data to work with, so this should be worth following.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>this-could-be-interesting...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101217/04100512316Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:31:49 PSTPC Mag Responds To Legacy Recording Industry's 'Complaint' LetterMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101128/23325812027/pc-mag-responds-to-legacy-recording-industrys-complaint-letter.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101128/23325812027/pc-mag-responds-to-legacy-recording-industrys-complaint-letter.shtmlcomplaint letter sent by the bosses of pretty much every old school legacy music industry lobbying/trade group, officially sent to Ziff Davis to complain about two articles concerning Limewire alternatives, suggesting that the articles were promoting unauthorized copyright infringement. Of course, as we noted, these old school recording industry bosses were so upset, they failed to notice that one of the articles in question wasn't even published by PC Mag (the target of the letter), but by PC World, a competing publication put out by an entirely different company, IDG.

Apparently, in their haste to send a complaint to the wrong publisher, these geniuses of the recording industry also failed to leave an address for a reply letter, so PC Mag's Lance Ulanoff responded with a public response letter, which basically tells all of those organizations to learn what it means to be the press reporting on a topic, as opposed to an advocate pushing a particular viewpoint:

The story isn't encouraging or discouraging anything. That's not our role. PCMag's job is to cover all aspects of technology, which includes the products, services and activities that some groups and individuals might deem objectionable. We covered these Limewire alternatives because we knew they would be of interest to our readers. We understand that some might use them to illegally download content. We cannot encourage that action, but also cannot stop it. Reporting on the existence of these services does neither.

We have, obviously, written about many online and offline services, including some that these groups might consider legitimate or "legal." However, the fact is that some users store and manage illegally gained content in music applications like iTunes. We would not stop covering these utilities simply because some users place illegal or even inappropriate content in them.

More importantly, Ulanoff points out the same thing we did in questioning what the hell these industry groups thought they would accomplish in suggesting the press not cover a story:

It worries me that the music industry took this action, because it reeks of desperation. The RIAA and other music industry organizations have spent the better part of the decade fighting the digital transition, with only a shrinking business to show for it. In recent years, though, the fist of anger has turned into at least one open hand as the music industry embraces the once shunned digital music industry. Unfortunately, that warm embrace, and the change that comes with it, are not happening fast enough. Clearly the music industry is still losing money to music piracy and even the recalibrated profit margins brought on by legal music sharing services.

It's time for these music execs to pull their collective heads out of the sand and fully acknowledge and accept all the ways their industry has changed. They also have to understand that nothing will stop technology's inexorable march forward. Things will continue to change. Music downloads and sharing will never go away. These execs have to find a way to use all that technology allows and make a business that rivals the good old days of vinyl, cassette tape and even CDs.

We will continue to cover it all--as we must.

Not a particularly surprising response, but kudos to PC Mag for sticking to its principles, and not feeling bullied by these industry folks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hello,-we're-the-presshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101128/23325812027Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:36:26 PSTIrony: LimeWire Complaining About 'Unauthorized' Versions Of LimeWireMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/00151611812/irony-limewire-complaining-about-unauthorized-versions-of-limewire.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/00151611812/irony-limewire-complaining-about-unauthorized-versions-of-limewire.shtmldiscussing how some anonymous developers had created and released a "pirate edition" of LimeWire, after the company LimeWire was required to no longer offer its software. Now LimeWire has put out an announcement demanding those who put out such an "unauthorized version" cease & desist. It does seem rather ironic that a company whose software was regularly used to access unauthorized works is now "complaining" about unauthorized versions of its own work. Of course, it's likely that the company is well aware of this, but has put out this announcement so that it doesn't get blamed in court for this unauthorized version.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>seriously?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101111/00151611812Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:25:58 PDTJudge Orders Limewire To Shut Down; Limewire Pretends It Can Still ExistMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/15273911594/judge-orders-limewire-to-shut-down-limewire-pretends-it-can-still-exist.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/15273911594/judge-orders-limewire-to-shut-down-limewire-pretends-it-can-still-exist.shtmlearlier ruling, but the judge in the Limewire case has now ruled in favor of the RIAA that Limewire needs to shut down "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality." Basically, all of the functionality. Amusingly, Limewire is pretending it can still function without any... er... functions:

An important point of clarification, LimeWire is not “shutting down”, in specific regarding our software, we are compelled to use our best efforts cease support and distribution of the file-sharing software, along with increased filtering. And, that is what we are doing.

Of course, we've seen similar file sharing apps make similar claims when the judge's hammer came down, and they all went away. Of course, it's not like this actually means anything, other than the fact that people who want to file share have already moved on to other apps and services (mostly overseas) that are even less likely and less willing to work with the recording industry, and which will be that much harder to shut down. One by one, the RIAA has killed off the few firms that actually had an interest in trying to work with the industry, so everyone has gone to the groups that want nothing to do with the RIAA in any format.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>yeah,-okhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101026/15273911594Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:43:03 PDTEntertainment Industry Propaganda Campaign Against Limewire Fails; FTC Drops ID Fraud InvestigationMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/03184710792.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/03184710792.shtmllosing its lawsuit to the major record labels, the company was also the target of a ridiculous propaganda campaign over the years, orchestrated by a few entertainment industry organizations, which tried to connect Limewire to identity fraud, by claiming that people were putting personal data into shared folders... and this was somehow Limewire's fault. Either way, the FTC stepped in to investigate and has now dropped the investigation, saying that, while the company could still do a better job educating users on how not to inadvertently share information, it didn't see anything that was actionable against Limewire.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>so-much-for-thathttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100827/03184710792Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:03:13 PDTLimeWire Sued Again... How Many Times Does The Industry Want To Kill It?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1240159857.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1240159857.shtmlshut down completely after its legal win over the company. Given the nature of the initial ruling, it seems pretty likely that LimeWire is fighting a losing battle. Recently lots of folks were discussing the ridiculous damages that the RIAA is claiming LimeWire owes. On top of that, however, it looks like the music publishers have decided to pile on as well, and have filed a separate copyright infringement lawsuit against LimeWire. Honestly, this seems like it's just for the sake of vanity, or to be able to primp and preen for its members about how it's "doing something." The initial lawsuit will almost certainly kill off Limewire as a company. This new lawsuit can't kill it again. It's just a waste of time and money. Meanwhile, LimeWire users will have just moved on and will continue sharing files.

As you can see from the ruling, LimeWire never really had a chance. It basically did everything that Grokster did (and potentially more), so under the Grokster ruling, it's a pretty open and shut case. Of course that doesn't mean this isn't troubling in many ways. In fact, it reiterates many of the problems with the original Grokster ruling. For example, it mentions things like the fact that LimeWire folks knew that LimeWire could be used to transfer copyrighted works. But that's meaningless. Email can be used for transferring copyrighted works. FTP too. The web as well.

Either way, I'm still wondering if, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Grokster case, which solidified this non-legislative concept of "inducement" for copyright infringement (something that Congress had chosen not to put into the law -- despite having the opportunity), if it's possible to create a system for more efficiently sharing files that doesn't violate the inducement standard. In most of these cases, part of the problem is that these sites advertise themselves for the ability to infringe on copyrights, and employees at the sites were active in helping users infringe. As such, you can see how that's clear inducement. But what if a site was set up that didn't do all of those things, but was still widely used for infringement. Would that still be inducement? If so, that seems incredibly troubling. The law should not be set up in a way to outright ban a technology that has a wide variety of useful applications, and is used for plenty of legitimate purposes, even if it's also used (even if regularly used) for infringing purposes.